Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tsar bobo Iv said:
but she is the mother to the future heir to the throne
Click to expand...
So was the late Diana, princess of Wales, and she also had to follow the Order of Precedence and as far as I know there were no complaints that Diana had to curtsey to the princesses of the blood.
 
dbarn67 said:
I have no problem with the Order of Precedence that Her Majesty has set forth. Just because the Duchess of Cambridge is the popular gal of the moment doesn't mean she should leapfrog over the Queen's rules. I, for one, think it's right that blood princesses have a slight advantage over someone who's married into the role of princesses. I have enormous respect for Princess Anne, and, as she's a blood princess I think she should have a higher advantage of the Camilla, Sophie and now Catherine. Beatrice and Eugenie shouldn't be subject to a different set of standard just because they're not a popular as Catherine or as active in the royal work world as the Princess Royal.
Click to expand...
Yes I see your point, but there is a difference being that Anne is the daughter of the reigning monarch, whilst the York princesses are granddaughters. And kate is married to the future heir, son of the oldest son, whilst they are daughters of the third child of the quee. I do see a point in children of the monarch having precedence over grandchildren of the monarch on some occasions. But if they are both grandchildren I don't understand it. I have a feeling there is more than meets the eye.
 
There may be more to the Order that we'll ever know but I still think it's totally appropriate for Bea and Eug to come before Sophie and Catherine. Catherine came into the marriage as a commoner with not aristocratic or royal title of her own. Yes, she's pretty and popular but she's shouldn't come in with nothing to recommend her but her marriage to Williams. She should, in my opinion, take a step back before the blood princesses. Unfortunately, as we saw with Sarah and Diana and even Anne's 1st husband, royal marriages are not always secure forever. It is right that Catherine and Camilla be a step removed from have full royal precedence to Bea, Anne and Eugenie IMO. The Order of Precedence will change as time moves forward. When Charles becomes King the order may change to Catherine outranking Beatrice and Eugenie. JMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's all a question of perception, isn't it?

One material point is that royalty must adapt to the times in order to survive, just like any other cultural or governmental institution.

The fact is, the idea of "blood princesses" sounds ridiculously medieval. To many, it sounds incredibly classist and elitist to believe that someone of particular birth "deserves" privileges.

I'm not convinced that that is the idea that QEII wants to project, given that she puts so much public emphasis on service and duty.
 
I can see curtseying to Anne as she is The Princess Royal, but Beatrice and Eugenie strikes me as a little odd. I mean, if she's going to have to curtsey to blood relatives won't that also mean Louise and James? And what about the also-royal-but-untitled Peter and Zara? It's a wonder Catherine doesn't get migraines trying to keep it all straight. It seems like such a maze!
 
Louise and James are too young, and Zara and Peter are not titled and are not classed as "royal" they are just related to the royal family. They don't really come into consideration. Also, just because Anne has the title Princess Royal makes her no more deserving of a curtsey than her nieces IMO.

This discussion has been talked about in 3 different threads, and I believe the same conclusion has arisen. We don't know who curtsey's to who in private, it's private. IMO curtsey's come down to respect for one another.
 
Catherine would never have to curtsey to Louise or James, unless they choose to use their HRH title which I doubt they ever will do. Nor will she curtsey to Peter or Zara as they are not HRH/"Royal".

This curtseying thing is all rubbish, and I highly doubt they actually curtsey to one another except for the Queen and Prince Philip. I can honestly say I have NEVER come across an image of Sophie ever curtseying to Camilla or Anne, never mind Beatrice and Eugenie. If this is the way it is going to, Sophie will end up curtseying to her own daughter. I think this precedence thing is only for when it is only female's attending an engagement, which is very rare.

I just cannot imagine the family sitting down for a gathering and worrying about to whom they have to bend a knee too. The only reason the Queen changed the Precedence when Camilla married Charles was because she did not want to have to see Alexandra or Anne curtsey to her son's new wife. She did not change it when Sophie married, thus she did not have a problem with the idea of Sophie coming before her daugther, therefore it makes me think the Queen changed it on purpose because of her earlier dislike of Camilla.
 
I'd just like to add three things (all extensively covered in the Precedence thread).

Firstly, there is a difference between Official and Private Orders of Precedence.
In the Official order, blood Princesses do NOT outrank Princesses by marriage. Thus, the Duchess of Cornwall (as wife of the Duke of Cornwall) comes immediately after the Queen, followed by the Countess of Wessex (wife of the younger son of the Sovereign), followed by the Duchess of Cambridge (wife of the son of the Prince of Wales).
In Private order, which is entirely at will of the Sovereign, blood Princesses such as Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie (possibly, Lady Louise too) do outrank Princesses by marriage.

Secondly, Precedence list does NOT indicate who has to curtsey to whom; it just shows who has precedence over whom. A subtle difference, but still.
A century or even a couple of decades ago (when protocol, precedence and ranking rules were far stricter than now), the place in the precedence list might have meant those lower in the list had to curtsey those above them. Both Precedence lists are there simply for convenience, to settle questions such as arrival order and sitting arrangements.
Private Precedence list is only relevant for private events - and I strongly doubt royal ladies go about curtseying to each other during those. Again, it is mostly for more practical arrangements, not curtseying or bowing.

Thirdly, even if the strictest protocol rules are operated (such as for Coronations), despite the common misconception, Kate still wouldn't curtsey to blood Princesses.
Royal ladies would have to curtsey only to those above them in the Official Precedence Order - NOT the private one. Thus, Kate would have to curtsey only to those above her - the Queen, the Duchess of Cornwall, and the Countess of Wessex. Similarly, Camilla would have to curtsey only to the Queen - and no one else, whether Princess by blood or marriage.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately I have enough respect for Her Majesty's judgement that I don't really question her and her staff's Order of Precedence public or private. It's really a non-issue IMO.
 
It's really pointless to have the same discussion over and over again. One more time I direct you to already existing and well-advanced thread titled http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html. Everyone is welcome. Just don't start a new thread because you want to make your point or ask some questions.
IMO, all that noise about "Kate curtsying to Beatrice and Eugenie" is strictly a matter of protocl and Order of Precedence. And just because some *****y tabloids had what to yell about for some days does not mean there was real "contrvoversy".
Artemisia, I admire your patience. You just keep explaining the facts to us, ignorants, again and again. I'm sure you ca use the cut, copy, and paste command sometimes. ;-)
 
Last edited:
kbk said:
It's really pointless to have the same discussion over and over again. One more time I direct you to already existing and well-advanced thread titled http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html. Everyone is welcome. Just don't start a new thread because you want to make your point or ask some questions.
IMO, all that noise about "Kate curtsying to Beatrice and Eugenie" is strictly a matter of protocl and Order of Precedence. And just because some *****y tabloids had what to yell about for some days does not mean there was real "contrvoversy".
Artemisia, I admire your patience. You just keep explaining the facts to us, ignorants, again and again. I'm sure you ca use the cut, copy, and paste command sometimes. ;-)
Click to expand...

I dont mean to be rude, but may I ask on what authority you make these sweeping directions regarding where and how other members should post?
 
Personally I wish that HM would have limited the curtsey and bow rule to the Sovereign and his/her consort and the first heir in line to the throne and his/her consort. The heir and all other members of the BRF could also continue the practice of greeting visiting monarchs and their consorts with a bow/curtsey.
 
TLLK said:
Personally I wish that HM would have limited the curtsey and bow rule to the Sovereign and his/her consort and the first heir in line to the throne and his/her consort. The heir and all other members of the BRF could also continue the practice of greeting visiting monarchs and their consorts with a bow/curtsey.
Click to expand...


Normal people don't have to bow or curtsey to anyone but if you are going to regard yourself as better then everyone else because you have a fancy title then you will make darn sure that those in your circle know their place and pay you the respect your title deserves. It is all part of their belief that they are superior to us mere mortals.
 
"It is all part of their belief that they are superior to us mere mortals."

Do you actually believe that members of the BRF actually believe this ? While they know they were born into a special situation I rather doubt they believe they are superior to anyone else as people or mere mortals as you refer to the general population.
 
I do very much believe that the members of the BRF believe that they are better than the rest of us.
 
scooter said:
I dont mean to be rude, but may I ask on what authority you make these sweeping directions regarding where and how other members should post?
Click to expand...

Again thank you! The nerve of some people
 
kbk said:
It's really pointless to have the same discussion over and over again. One more time I direct you to already existing and well-advanced thread titled http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html. Everyone is welcome. Just don't start a new thread because you want to make your point or ask some questions.
IMO, all that noise about "Kate curtsying to Beatrice and Eugenie" is strictly a matter of protocl and Order of Precedence. And just because some *****y tabloids had what to yell about for some days does not mean there was real "contrvoversy".
Artemisia, I admire your patience. You just keep explaining the facts to us, ignorants, again and again. I'm sure you ca use the cut, copy, and paste command sometimes. ;-)
Click to expand...

Im going to address you this one and only time to ensure that you understand me clearly. I am entitled to post a new thread on topics I wish to discuss as i see fit. It is my understanding that this is one of the privileges that membership affords to one. However, if the site administrators see fit to move, merge, or delete a thread i have posted, then so be it. To be perfectly honest I might have followed your direction had you not used such a supereminent "literary tone". I make it my aim to treat people respectfully, and if I fail to do so I try to apologize. I don't expect everyone on this board to operate by my moral values, but I do wish to inform you that such pitiful and unnecessary behavior doesn't go unnoticed. my best advice I can give you (which i am aware you are fully entitled to take or decline) is to avoid posts, such as this so as not to cause you further nuisance and trouble.
 
Last edited:
casualfan said:
It's all a question of perception, isn't it?

One material point is that royalty must adapt to the times in order to survive, just like any other cultural or governmental institution.

The fact is, the idea of "blood princesses" sounds ridiculously medieval. To many, it sounds incredibly classist and elitist to believe that someone of particular birth "deserves" privileges.

I'm not convinced that that is the idea that QEII wants to project, given that she puts so much public emphasis on service and duty.
Click to expand...

The concept of monarchy has nothing to do with equality; it is indeed classist and elitist. I have no problem with any of this, because this institution is part of a nation's heritage and tradition, and if the citizens of United Kingdom don't see an issue with how things are run (and it seems that most are perfectly fine with it, or could care less), then there's really no reason to get excited. The Order of Precedence appears to work (even if there are those outside of the Family that see problems with it), so there's no reason to change it. It strikes me that the real purpose really comes in handy during State Occasions or formal family occasions, so I'm sure if Catherine wanted to have an afternoon of shopping with Sophie Wessex, there would be no need to curtsey when they greet each other.
 
We Royal watchers must have seen hundreds of thousands of Royal images, and really, it seems to me, the only time i ever see anybody (in the Royal families) curtsey to anybody else in public, is to the Monarch of that country.
 
NGalitzine said:
"It is all part of their belief that they are superior to us mere mortals."

Do you actually believe that members of the BRF actually believe this ? While they know they were born into a special situation I rather doubt they believe they are superior to anyone else as people or mere mortals as you refer to the general population.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. IMHO the members of the BRF are very much aware that they happened to be placed in a unique situation that gave them a great deal of wealth and status. However, I do not believe that most would believe themselves to be superior to others.
 
We Royal watchers must have seen hundreds of thousands of Royal images, and really, it seems to me, the only time i ever see anybody (in the Royal families) curtsey to anybody else in public, is to the Monarch of that country.
Click to expand...


I have seen the Princess Royal curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall in public.
 
There have been reports for nearly 30 years that Anne has refused to curtsey first to Diana and now to Camilla - now after their marriages Diana and Camilla were/are also HRHs as is Anne but she has simply refused to curtsey to them.
Click to expand...

Ann has curtesyed to the Duchess. I saw it a video right here on this site.
 
This thread will probably just be merged; just point out a double topic to the mods and the
they themselves will give a direct link to the already existing topic.
 
Last edited:
cdngirl said:
I have seen the Princess Royal curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall in public.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see those pictures!
 
cdngirl said:
I have seen the Princess Royal curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall in public.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link to show that? I ask because Anne always refused to curtsey to Diana and it was her animosity to Camilla that lead to the issuing of the new order of precedence in 2005 that put Anne and Alexandra ahead of Camilla.

So if she was curtseying to Camilla, Charles would have to have been there in which case she was curtseying to Charles.
 
that is awful if she curtsy 2 camilla and not to diana
 
Hi ILB

I will try and find it for you. I don't believe I saw Charles in the video.
 
Lumutqueen said:
I'd like to see those pictures!
Click to expand...

Iluvbertie said:
Do you have a link to show that? I ask because Anne always refused to curtsey to Diana and it was her animosity to Camilla that lead to the issuing of the new order of precedence in 2005 that put Anne and Alexandra ahead of Camilla.

So if she was curtseying to Camilla, Charles would have to have been there in which case she was curtseying to Charles.
Click to expand...

I have seen a video of Anne curtseying to Camilla as well. It was a Ascot a few years ago. Charles certainly did not appear to be present. If it helps find the video, I think Camilla was wearing a beige / gold Vivienne Westwood coat dress that day.
 
Let's look at what a curtsey is. It's a sign of respect for somebody. It's no longer insisted upon by the Royal Household for the public but it's obviously something the Royal Family have to do among themselves. If they don't, why should anyone else bother? To me it's natural that those who marry in should curtsey to those born as part of the firm but there's another level to that and that is - who exactly have they become by marriage? At the moment, the Duchess of Cambridge is not the heir's wife, but Camilla is and so it's natural that the Princess Royal would bob to the lady who will be the next Queen Consort. If she didn't curtsey to Diana, well that's just too bad. Plain and simple truth folks, is that not everyone can get along. Anne likes Camilla, she didn't like Diana. And so twas done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Orders, decorations, and medals of kingdom of Italy
Replies
3
Views
978
Blog Real
Blog Real
Z
The new order of precedence
Replies
2
Views
8K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Marengo
Order of Precedence 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
24
Views
859
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Notification - Additional Rules for the Wales Forum
Replies
0
Views
637
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom